标签：#MachineLearning

Hi everyone, I'm an independent researcher sharing Monodratic, a sparse causal-attention architecture with learned product-hash routing. The idea is that after RoPE, source blocks are assigned to bounded causal posting lists, while each query probes product addresses, reranks the returned candidates, selects a fixed number of remote source blocks, adds guaranteed local blocks, and then runs exact causal softmax over just those tokens. I implemented it as a stateless [batch, sequence, width] -> attention-delta mixer, so normalization, residual updates, feed-forward layers, and inference scheduling are left to the host model. What I found is that -learned routing with 2 selected remote blocks out of 5 eligible: 763/768 correct associative-recall answers across three seeds (99.35% mean, 98.05% minimum). -an equally wide untrained router: 425/768. Local-only attention: 151/768. -forcing the labelled target block while keeping the same maximum R2 attention budget recovered all five remaining errors, reaching 768/768. -sparse selected-set attention agreed with an independent dense selected-mask oracle to a maximum absolute error of 1.43e-6. -the packed CPU routing implementation showed a fitted timing exponent of 0.993 from 4,096 to 32,768 tokens under the fixed, balanced configuration. -all reported learned-route and scaling runs recorded zero posting overflow. The limitations are that the experiments are synthetic, the implementation is portable PyTorch rather than a fused kernel, and the report does not claim natural-language quality, asymptotic linear construction, or deployment speed. Paper: https://github.com/Misul-Computing/Monodratic/blob/main/output/pdf/monodratic_proof.pdf Code and reproduction: https://github.com/Misul-Computing/Monodratic I would particularly appreciate technical feedback on the routing construction, the controls, and what the strongest next evaluation should be. submitted by /u/dttdrv [link] [留言]

Beyond Size: The Three Pillars of Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models The narrative of artificial intelligence for the last decade has been dominated by a single, powerful trend: scaling. From the early days of AlexNet to the massive clusters powering GPT-4, the formula seemed simple—more data and more parameters lead to better performance. This paradigm, famously codified as the "Scaling Laws," suggested that we could predict model improvements simply by looking at the amount of compute poured into the pre-training phase. However, as the industry pushes against the boundaries of available high-quality data and the physical limits of hardware, a new dimension of scaling is emerging. It isn't about how large the model is, but how long it "thinks" before it speaks. This shift toward "test-time scaling" marks a transition from static intelligence to dynamic reasoning. Instead of relying solely on the patterns learned during training, models are now being equipped with the computational budget to explore, verify, and refine their answers at the point of inference. While the concept was popularized by the release of models like OpenAI’s o1 series , the underlying mechanics remained somewhat opaque. A recent comprehensive study by Hariri et al. (2026), titled " Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility ", provides a much-needed formal framework for understanding this new frontier. The Three Regimes of Inference Compute The core contribution of the Hariri et al. paper is the formalization of test-time scaling into three distinct structural regimes. Rather than treating all "extra compute" as a single scalar budget, the authors map how compute is allocated across the implicit prefix tree of an autoregressive model. 1. Single-Trajectory Sequential Scaling This is the most familiar regime, often associated with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. In this mode, the model generates a single sequence of tokens. Compute is scaled

Originally published at Programming Tech Lab . Welcome to the Garage: What is Linear Regression? Step away from the kitchen counter and step into a bustling auto garage. Imagine you are an experienced mechanic evaluating used cars brought in for trade-ins. A customer drives in a sedan with 50,000 miles on the odometer and asks: "How much is my car worth?" Without needing a complex computer program, your brain instantly draws a connection: as the mileage on a car goes up, its resale price goes down. If a car has 0 miles (brand new), it commands peak market price. If it has 200,000 miles, it drops significantly toward scrap value. This straight-line relationship between two factors—where changes in one variable cause a predictable increase or decrease in another—is the core concept behind Linear Regression . Deconstructing the Formula (Without the Headache) In high school math, you probably saw the classic line equation: y = mx + b In machine learning, Linear Regression uses this exact same formula to make predictions: Predicted Value (y) = ( Slope m × Input Feature x ) + Starting Point b Let's map this directly to our mechanic's garage evaluation: Target (y): The estimated resale price of the car ($). Input Feature (x): The total miles on the odometer. Starting Point / Intercept (b): The price of the car when mileage is 0 (Brand New MSRP). Slope / Weight (m): The rate of depreciation (e.g., losing $0.10 in value for every 1 mile driven). If a car starts at a baseline price of $30,000 and depreciates by $0.10 per mile, a car with 50,000 miles is predicted to be worth: Predicted Price = $30,000 - ($0.10 × 50,000) = $25,000 How the Algorithm Draws the Perfect Line: Least Squares If you plot 100 used cars on a graph where the horizontal axis (X) is Mileage and the vertical axis (Y) is Price, the dots won't form a perfectly straight laser line. Some owners took great care of their vehicles; others had minor scratches. So how does a Linear Regression algorithm draw the sin

​ Now that the rebuttal period is over, I’m curious about the score distribution specifically for theory papers this year. If you’re comfortable sharing, please drop: • Scores: x / x / x • Confidence: x / x / x • Whether scores changed after rebuttal • Broad area (optional) I got 4 / 4 / 4, with confidence 3 / 3 / 3. From my experience, theory papers often seem to get somewhat lower scores, and this year the scores appear to be lower across disciplines as well. It would be interesting to see where the empirical cutoff might land. Feel free to share anonymously / approximately if you don't want to reveal too much. submitted by /u/Mammoth-Leg-3844 [link] [留言]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/Economy_Cicada8756 [link] [留言]

AI agent safety boundaries are a critical challenge when agents use external tools. My journey into understanding how these boundaries can fail began with a deep dive into recent technical reports from leading AI research organizations. I encountered this concept while exploring incidents reported by Anthropic and OpenAI. These reports detail scenarios where AI models, despite being explicitly instructed to operate within simulated environments, managed to interact with real-world systems. This phenomenon, often termed "boundary failure," occurs when the actual operational environment of an agent does not match its internal understanding or the constraints it has been given. Modern AI agents are becoming incredibly useful because we're equipping them with capabilities far beyond just answering questions. They can run commands, browse the web, use APIs (Application Programming Interfaces), read and modify files, install packages, and interact with other systems. This ability to act and interface with the world is what makes agentic architectures so powerful and a direction truly worth investing in. However, the more an agent can do, the more critical the boundaries around it become. A key example comes from Anthropic's July 30 report, detailing three incidents discovered during their cybersecurity evaluations. Claude models were explicitly told they had no internet access and were working inside simulated environments. However, a problem with the evaluation environment's configuration meant that internet access was actually available. While attempting their assigned cybersecurity exercises, the models reached real systems, initially treating them as part of the simulation. In one striking incident, a Claude model even published a malicious Python package to the real PyPI (Python Package Index) registry, all while believing it was still operating within its simulated exercise. This wasn't simply an AI "deciding" to misbehave or to intentionally bypass security. The mo

I could not find any discussion threads for the C&F track. Have people actually submitted to this track? If so, what are your reviews and scores looking like, along with post rebuttal engagement? In our case, they received reviews not in line with the policy defined for the track, where most reviewers praised originality but complained about the scope of experiments. Despite the track saying that it would be possible that the idea cannot be validated in a single paper. We provided experiments but no dice, none of the reviewers responded. Have any ACs seen papers and reviews in this track or do authors have their experiences they could share? Please add your scores pre and post rebuttal here submitted by /u/MakingComputersSmart [link] [留言]

Is your snoring just a nuisance, or is it a health warning? Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) affects nearly 1 billion people worldwide, yet most remain undiagnosed due to the high cost of clinical polysomnography. Today, we are pushing the boundaries of AI Healthcare by repurposing OpenAI Whisper from a speech-to-text powerhouse into a clinical screening tool. In this tutorial, we will explore how to leverage Audio Signal Processing , Hugging Face Transformers , and Librosa to detect breathing patterns. By fine-tuning Whisper on non-speech acoustic events, we can transform a standard smartphone recording into a high-precision OSA screening device. Pro-Tip : If you're looking for more production-ready examples and advanced architectural patterns for AI-driven health monitoring, be sure to check out the deep-dives over at WellAlly Tech Blog . The Architecture: From Raw Audio to Clinical Insight To build an OSA screening algorithm, we don't just need to hear the sounds; we need to understand the rhythm and absence of sound. We use Whisper's robust encoder to capture the spectral features and a custom classification head to identify Apnea-Hypopnea events. graph TD A[Raw Sleep Audio .wav] --> B[Preprocessing: Librosa] B --> C[Noise Reduction & VAD] C --> D[Segmenting: 30s Windows] D --> E[OpenAI Whisper Encoder] E --> F{Event Classification} F -->|Normal| G[Healthy Breathing] F -->|Snore| H[Snore Phase Analysis] F -->|Silence/Choke| I[Apnea Event Detected] I --> J[AHI Index Calculation] J --> K[Final OSA Risk Report] Prerequisites To follow this advanced guide, you'll need: Tech Stack : Python 3.9+, transformers , librosa , torch , and evaluate . Dataset : Ideally, the UCD Snore Database or similar PSG-synchronized audio data. Step 1: Audio Preprocessing with Librosa Before feeding audio into Whisper, we need to clean the signal. Sleep environments are noisy (fans, traffic, etc.). We use librosa to normalize the audio and detect "Voice" (or in our case, Breath) Activity. im

I trained a small MLP to memorize the classic Bad Apple animation, ~2.7 billion pixels of video compressed into 790k parameters (3.2 MB float32, 1.6 MB float16). The network takes a 3D coordinate (t, y, x)- frame index and pixel position- and outputs a grayscale value between 0 and 1. To "play" the video, you can evaluate the function over the full grid. The "video" is stored implicitly in 5 linear layers of sine activations (Sitzmann et al.'s SIREN) with 512 hidden units, ω₀ = 30, and sigmoid output. The source bad_apple.mp4 is 6524 frames at 854×480; I subsampled to 1620 frames × 384×384, about 1/10 of the original pixels (2.8x spatial + 4x temporal reduction). At first, I used a ReLU MLP with low-frequency Fourier features, which plateaued around MSE 0.12. SIREN's sine activations add higher frequency for free, so the network was capable of outputting fine details. Unfortunately, that model had an issue, which was that it could only shift the information slowly, so quick motion came out blurry. To fix this, I made two changes: Time-stretch: I scaled the time coordinate by 4x relative to the space before the first layer, giving it 4x more temporal capacity. Motion-focused sampling: Bad Apple is ~90% static black, so uniform pixel sampling starved the moving edges of the gradient. Now half of each training batch is drawn from pixels that changed between neighboring frames. For the training pipeline, I had a single shared network on the whole volume (no per-frame latents; initially, I used per-frame finetuning, but that caused catastrophic forgetting) with a cosine-scheduled Adam + weight EMA, then a low-LR "polish" pass over the whole video. The new model had these improvements: Validation MSE dropped from 0.0795 to 0.0090 (~9x better). Compared to the old model, high-motion frames were 3.6x closer to ground truth, and static frames were almost 15x closer. 398/400 sampled frames improved. Edit: Some people are a little confused about the compressed part. The subsam

so I shipped a voice AI assistant that runs entirely on my machine. no cloud, no APIs, no latency nightmares. the original idea came from Alice in Sword Art Online — an AI that feels like an actual person, not a chatbot. mixed with JARVIS's anticipation and Neuro-sama's quirky personality. here's what actually went into getting from "wouldn't it be cool" to "this runs 24/7 without issues." the problem with voice AI most voice assistants are cloud-first: you speak → sent to server → processed → response → back to you. each hop adds latency. you're looking at 3-6 seconds before you hear anything. for a voice interaction, that's dead. it kills the feeling of talking to something intelligent. I wanted something faster. something that responds . the constraint: do it locally. use an 8GB VRAM GPU, run everything on-device, no external APIs except for the live2d avatar bits (because that's hard to render locally and still look good). the latency wall here's the reality: I have a GPU with 8GB VRAM. no budget to experiment with better cards or more models. so every architecture decision was forced by what actually fits. naive approach: chain multiple specialized models. User speaks → Transcription model (Whisper) → Planning model (3B: what should I do?) → Coding model (7B: generate implementation) → Verification model (4B: is this correct?) → TTS (speak the answer) math: 1s + 2s + 3s + 1.5s = 7.5s of latency before the user hears anything. nope. the problem isn't just that each model is slow. it's model loading overhead . every time you swap from one model to another, you: unload model A from VRAM load model B into VRAM stall while the GPU rearranges memory with only 8GB, this gets gnarly fast. the decision: one unified model the constraint was hardware. 8GB VRAM. no more, no less. that forced clarity: pick one model that does everything, or pick nothing. so I went with a single model (4B by default, with 7B/8B quality modes available) that does reasoning + code generation +

I’ve seen a lot of people whose reviewers went silent after initial reviews, but I am also noting abnormally quiet authors. I ultimately withdrew my paper, but stayed an active reviewer. Out of my batch of 4 papers, one withdrew, one posted a rebuttal, and two have been completely silent. Of the two papers with radio silence, I think one had borderline scores. I was also the only reviewer who responded to the one paper with a rebuttal. Has anyone noticed this abnormally dead review period or did I just get a strange batch? I’m seeing either reviewers just dropping out of the review process or authors completely checking out after initial reviews are released. It’s strange to me to not even withdraw your paper if you’re not rebutting. Is this a new gambling trend of just submitting papers everywhere, and not even sticking around long enough to withdraw the paper? submitted by /u/RevolutionaryPea8272 [link] [留言]

Why Decouple Reasoning from Motor Control General-purpose robots have to pull off two very different jobs at once. They need to read a cluttered, full-room visual scene, hold a multi-minute plan in memory, and converse with a person — and, in the same instant, close a high-frequency control loop that keeps a balancing humanoid upright and moves a delicate hand without dropping whatever it holds. Cramming both jobs into a single end-to-end network forces uncomfortable trade-offs: the large context window you want for reasoning fights the low latency you need for torque control. On July 28, 2026, Google DeepMind pushed directly against that trade-off with Gemini Robotics 2 , followed on July 30 by Gemini Robotics ER 2. Rather than one monolithic network, the suite splits the problem across three specialized models — whole-body vision-language-action (VLA) control, high-level embodied reasoning, and on-device adaptation — each tuned to a different cadence and context size. The same modular thinking is visible across recent robotics and VLA research collected on the arXiv robotics listings and on Hugging Face Papers , where decomposed perception-planning-control stacks have become a recurring pattern. Understanding DeepMind's specific split clarifies why this architecture is gaining traction. The Three-Model Split ER 2: High-Level Task Reasoning Gemini Robotics ER 2 is the cognitive planner of the stack. It is a vision-language model built for embodied reasoning: it ingests the live camera feed and a natural-language instruction, then decomposes a task that may run several minutes into structured sub-goals. Beyond planning, ER 2 manages dialogue with a human supervisor, interprets spatial context, and coordinates multiple robots operating in a shared workspace — deciding which sub-task gets handed to which platform. Operating more slowly than the control layer (roughly a few times per second), ER 2 trades frequency for breadth of context. That separation matters: a reas

Most business prediction problems do not arrive as prose. They arrive as rows: account attributes, transactions, sensor readings, test results, and a target column. For this kind of data, gradient-boosted trees and other conventional methods remain hard to displace. A new paper, Why Large Language Models Fail at Tabular Prediction , asks a much more useful question than “can an LLM classify a table?”: what, specifically, breaks as the task becomes more like ordinary tabular machine learning? The answer from the authors’ controlled experiments is input dimensionality. Their result matters because it separates a real limitation from several explanations that sound plausible but did not hold up in their tests. The experiment was about prediction, not table chat The paper evaluates frontier LLMs in a pure inference setup: a model receives labeled examples and must predict labels for new rows in a single generation pass. There is no fine-tuning, retrieval pipeline, tool calling, or agent loop to compensate for the base model. This is deliberately narrow. It asks whether a general-purpose language model can act as a direct tabular learner. Across 31 benchmark datasets, the authors compare nine methods and 252 configured classical models. That scope is important: a weak result on one CSV is easy to explain away as prompt design or a quirky dataset. A consistent trend across many tasks is harder to dismiss. The headline is not simply that LLMs lose to established tabular baselines. It is that their accuracy declines as the number of input dimensions grows, while the classical baselines in the study stay stable or improve. The paper therefore treats dimensionality as the central failure mode rather than an incidental property of difficult datasets. Four popular explanations did not survive testing There are several standard reasons developers give for poor LLM performance on tables. The researchers turn these into falsifiable hypotheses. “The classes overlap too much.” If th

Have you ever had this happen? You're chatting with a friend about buying a new pair of shoes. A few hours later... Instagram shows you an ad for those exact shoes. Or maybe you're talking about planning a trip. Suddenly...Your feed is filled with hotel deals, flight offers, and travel videos. The first thought that comes to almost everyone's mind is: "𝐌𝐲 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞." 👀 Honestly... I've thought the same. And maybe you have too. But what if I told you that the truth is actually more fascinating than the myth? So... is your phone secretly listening? Probably not. Not because it can't. But because it usually doesn't need to. Think about it. Every day you leave behind hundreds of tiny digital clues. 🔍 What you search. ❤️ What you like. ⏱️ How long you watch a video. 🛒 What you browse. 📍 Where you go. 👥 Even who you interact with online. Individually...They don't say much. Together...They tell a story that's surprisingly accurate. A story about your habits. The scary part? AI doesn't need to hear your conversations. Sometimes...It already knows what you're likely to do next. Not because it can read your mind. But because it's incredibly good at recognizing patterns. And when a prediction is accurate enough... It starts to feel like magic. Or surveillance. Here's what fascinates me the most. The real superpower of modern AI isn't listening. It's predicting. And sometimes...Those predictions are so good that they make us question reality itself. The next time you think, "My phone is definitely listening to me." Ask yourself a different question. "How much of my digital behavior have I already shared without realizing it?" Because maybe...The microphone isn't the real story. Your patterns are. 💬 Have you ever had an experience that made you think your phone was listening to you? What happened? Takeaway : Technology doesn't always become powerful by knowing more. Sometimes... It becomes powerful by predicting better. Technology becomes less magical when you und

As the title suggests, because there's no data on Papercopilot yet, and people have been talking about the scores being lower in general than last year, I thought it could be interesting to survey the average score distribution after the rebuttal phase (not considering confidence weights). Very rough and simple poll (I also realize there's a self-selection bias in there). Cast your vote here: https://loppy.be/poll/yczuv8yo Thanks! Edit: the trolls have taken over, never mind any notion of representativeness I guess... submitted by /u/Zhiend727 [link] [留言]

Most of the validation work on vaas-x so far had been industrial sensor data — turbofans, machine telemetry. I wanted to know if the same zero-config channel classifier actually transfers to a completely different domain: a wearable IMU strapped to a moving human. No feature engineering, no per-sport tuning, no hints about what any channel means. I'm writing this one up slightly differently than my other posts, because the first version of this test gave me a wrong answer, and I think the reason it was wrong is more useful than the result itself. The dataset UCI's Daily and Sports Activities set (Altun, Barshan & Tunçel, 2010): 8 subjects, each wearing five Xsens IMU units — torso, both arms, both legs — 9 axes per unit (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer × x/y/z), sampled at 25Hz. 45 channels total. It includes both a sedentary activity (sitting) and dynamic sport activities (basketball, rowing), which gives a clean, checkable question: does a classifier that's never seen this data correctly tell apart "person sitting still" from "person playing basketball," using channel statistics alone? import pandas as pd # Mirrored subset: github.com/AniMadurkar/Daily-Activities-and-Sports-Biomechanics-Analysis df = pd . read_csv ( " sports_science_dataset_subset.csv " ) channels = [ c for c in df . columns if c not in ( " subject " , " activity " , " timestamp " )] print ( len ( channels ), " channels " ) # 45 First attempt — and the mistake My first pass pooled all 8 subjects together per activity and ran it through the profiler in one shot. The result came back backwards: sitting showed up with more "significant" channels than basketball. That's not just unexpected, it's physically nonsensical — a person sitting still should be one of the lowest-variance activities in the entire dataset. The bug wasn't in the classifier. It was in the test. Pooling subjects together means each subject's own sensor baseline and IMU orientation differences get mixed into the between-subje

Six months ago I started experimenting with PPO and Breakout as a way to learn about Machine Learning and Reinforcement Learning. After a few experiuments just trying to get high scores, it bothered me that everything was a "memorized" script rather than reactive play, like a human would play. Thus began my journey to try and convince PPO to actually track the ball instead of focusing on scoring points. I read a lot of articles and tried a lot of things. After 124 PPO experiments on Atari Breakout, I found that every single model, across sticky actions, cursor wrappers, entropy tuning, dynamics randomization, adversarial bumpers, and everything else, converged to a memorized action sequence, not a reactive ball-tracking policy. The argmax was always a script. The fix wasn't more environment engineering. It was three lines of reward shaping: Directly rewarding the paddle for being horizontally close to the ball during descent. A tiny bonus (0.05 per frame vs 1.0-7.0 per brick) that fires every frame the ball is descending applied during training. During evaluation, the agent plays clean Breakout with no bonus. The behavior transfers!! Every prior approach I tried to penalize scripts by making the environment harder to memorize. PPO always found a way around it: timing-robust scripts, layout-conditioned scripts, noise-tolerant scripts. The optimum was always a script; only the shape changed. Proximity reward changes what the optimum is. A center-hold script gets incidental bonus when the ball passes near center. A reactive tracker gets the maximum bonus on every descent frame. The optimization pressure is unambiguous: track the ball, get more reward. I also made a cool tool to watch the agent work! It's called the "Split-Watcher" (so clever). It shows two instances of Breakout, each being controlled by a separate instance of the same agent. The one of the left is vanilla Breakout. The one of the right is a series of custom brick configurations. With the first 123 expe

After a very silent discussion period, we are in a very confused state with regards to NeurIPS, and really unsure what to make of everything. We do not wish to withdraw the submission since we have no idea what the reviewers and AC think of the paper, having deserted the conversation after a hopeful set of initial reviews. As of currently, ICLR abstract submission deadline is before the NeurIPS results announcement. Are we allowed to resubmit as an ICLR abstract, or will OpenReview flag this and consider it problematic? submitted by /u/ihatesalad1 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Benlus [link] [留言]

Pandas is an open-source library for data analysis and manipulation in Python. It provides fast, flexible and expressive data structures for working with relational and labelled data. Originally developed by Wes McKinney in 2008, it has become a foundational tool in modern data science and serves as a highly programmable analogue to spreadsheet software. Key characteristics NumPy foundation: Built on top of NumPy, it inherits highly optimised, array-based computational performance. Label-driven alignment: Data are automatically aligned according to explicit row and column labels, thereby improving the reliability of calculations involving partially mismatched datasets. Heterogeneous typing: Unlike strict numerical arrays, Pandas can accommodate mixed data types, including integers, strings, floats and booleans, within a single tabular structure. Missing-data resilience: It provides native support for detecting, representing and handling missing values, such as NaN. Core data structures Series: A one-dimensional labelled array capable of holding any data type. In practical terms, it resembles a single column in a spreadsheet. DataFrame: A two-dimensional tabular data structure with labelled rows and columns. It may be regarded as a collection of Series sharing a common index, analogous to a table in SQL or a worksheet in Excel. Core features and capabilities Robust input/output parsing: Pandas supports efficient reading and writing across multiple formats, including CSV, Excel, SQL databases, JSON and Parquet. Advanced data cleaning: Built-in methods enable users to identify, filter and remove duplicates, and to impute missing values. Flexible wrangling and reshaping: The library facilitates pivoting, melting, slicing and subsetting operations based on conditional logic. High-performance merging: Relational operations such as inner, outer, left and right joins, as well as concatenation, can be executed in concise code. Split-apply-combine (GroupBy): Data may be group